Unique improvements disappearing upon conquest

[Prester John 2]

What do you all think about this mechanism? I tend to agree that unique improvements should be used by their building civilization. But unique improvements from city states stay if the civ loses the suzerainty.
My preference would be that unique improvements become dysfunctional upon conquest but can be repaired if you have the necessary suzerainty.

 

[mitsho]

They should stay, it adds flavor and makes your empire look distinct and varied. If they are too strong, add a malus of some sort but keep them alive.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

They should stay and be a reward for now controlling that city. Gaining control of cities and managing large, multi-ethnic empires, however, should require much more effort than it does now.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Agreed. I think it's funny how they just magically disappear upon conquest.

 

[kryat]

I think it should vary by type, and who the AI conqueror is. No one is tearing down a ziggurat on conquest. On the other hand, Spain might see the kurgans as blasphemous, or Khmer might tear down missions. Maybe your should have the option of immediate destruction, especially for ones that yield faith.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm guessing that it caused a few very problematic issues combining some of them with the conquering civ's traits, or that some of the UI's abilities are intertwined with the Civ's (I'm thinking about Nubia perhaps); and it was easier to just do it this way instead of working out every possible combination.

 

[Hammurabbit]

While I would love a varied empire, where the original culture of the city would shine through more e.g. through unique improvements, I can understand why the designers decided to let them disappear (as @SammyKhalifa mentions) . After invading a bunch of kingdoms you would potentially have a lot of their bonuses mixed up with your own making you very powerful. I see the inconsistency with the city states unique improvements though.
I wonder if Firaxis tested games where unique improvements were kept, it might open up some interesting tactics.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm guessing that it caused a few very problematic issues combining some of them with the conquering civ's traits, or that some of the UI's abilities are intertwined with the Civ's (I'm thinking about Nubia perhaps); and it was easier to just do it this way instead of working out every possible combination.

It's also possible that the coding is civ-specific, i.e. Scythia gets +X from Kurgans, and the development team discovered in playtesting that when the improvements were taken over by other civs, they were no longer getting the bonus, making it a wasted tile. The route of least resistance at that point may have been to add a couple of lines of code destroying all unique improvements when the ownership of a city changes hands.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It's also possible that the coding is civ-specific, i.e. Scythia gets +X from Kurgans, and the development team discovered in playtesting that when the improvements were taken over by other civs, they were no longer getting the bonus, making it a wasted tile. The route of least resistance at that point may have been to add a couple of lines of code destroying all unique improvements when the ownership of a city changes hands.

And unique districts/buildings just get replaced by their generic counterparts, right? There's not a really good way to do that that I can think of. It's not like a kurgan is really a super-mine or whatever.

 

[Prester John 2]

I mentioned in the OP that unique improvements could rather become dysfunctional. By this I meant pillaged. So they're still there but are not workable. That has the advantage, that if the original owner reconquers the city all his improvement work isn't nullified. For the conqueror it is even a small penalty since he first has to remove them a pillaged UI before he can build new improvement on a tile. For simulation players like myself it would add a nice graphic touch.

 

[UWHabs]

I mentioned in the OP that unique improvements could rather become dysfunctional. By this I meant pillaged. So they're still there but are not workable. That has the advantage, that if the original owner reconquers the city all his improvement work isn't nullified. For the conqueror it is even a small penalty since he first has to remove them a pillaged UI before he can build new improvement on a tile. For simulation players like myself it would add a nice graphic touch.

Yes, that would make sense (although you'd need to make sure that they don't get pillage rewards). Then you'd also have to add in that you can't repair an improvement that you can't build.

 

[Halcyan2]

I fondly recall the joy in conquering all those juicy Terrace farms from the Inca in Civ V. (Unique improvements stayed when conquered in Civ V).

 

[Chefofrats]

I am a somewhat roleplaying-oriented player with an interest history and I must say that from an historical immersion perspective, the unique improvements disappearing is simply silly. The sphinxes of Egypt did not magically vanish overnight when the country was conquered by the Muslims in the 7th century CE, neither did the ziggurats of Sumeria when the lands of Mesopotamia repeatedly changed hands, and the steppes of Asia are still dotted with kurgans of the many peoples who erected them, including the Scythians.

Not only should the unique improvements stay - they should provide tourism bonuses to the conqueror after the Cultural Heritage civic is researched - even when pillaged. It might even make sense to turn groups of unique improvements into a new feature, an Historical Park, akin to the Natural Park.

 

[Prester John 2]

I wouldn't keep them fully intact upon conquest. After all, these physical structures are not simply buildings but represent social institutions which in all likelihood would fall out of use if a civ is conquered. Ziggurats were used as places of worship but if islamicized Arabs conquer them they are abandoned (aka pillaged).

 

[Forster]

I think they should remain and act as tourist attractions, but giving no other benefit to the conquering civ.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's not like most impovements are that strong either; so would be nice to keep.

 

[kaspergm]

Horrible game design. It was a big element in making the games play out differently, even if you used the same civlization, in Civ5. Now you're always stuck with your own and only your own unique structures in Civ6 (with a few odd exceptions). It's both unnecessary and makes game less fun. If anything, I'd go one step further in the other direction and say if you conquer another civ, you should be able to add their unique ability to your civ if it's already unlocked (and not obsolete) at the time of conquest.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

If anything, I'd go one step further in the other direction and say if you conquer another civ, you should be able to add their unique ability to your civ if it's already unlocked (and not obsolete) at the time of conquest.

Because warmongering isn't strong enough of a play?

 

[kaspergm]

Because warmongering isn't strong enough of a play?

That's kind of irrelevant. You're talking balance, I'm talking game design. If warmongering is overpowered, it should be fixed through balance, not by making the game less fun.

 

[Icicle]

You should keep them but not be able to make new ones or repair pillaged ones. They shouldn't get any new bonuses that the ones that gain bonuses through tech get either, they should be locked at what they were when you captured them.

You should be able to use archaeologists on them to remove/plunder them and get an artifact.

They should generate small loyalty for their home civ if the home civ is at war, to give the player a reason to want to remove them to think about.

All this would make it something to think about, weigh the benefits vs the drawbacks and give you more than just empty spaces whenever you conquer anything.